2002 (11) TMI 639

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellant. Shri V.S. Nankani, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : C. Satapathy, Member (T)]. - The application for condonation of delay has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I stating that the departmental appeal was sent to the Assistant Registrar, CEGAT, Mumbai on 19-4-2000 by registered speed post. However, the address mentioned was, Assistant Registrar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d delivered the appeal papers filed in February, 2000. There is also no evidence as to the receipt of the appeal papers in the Joint CDR's office located in Laxmi Building or its subsequent handing over to the CEGAT office. He submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 35E(4) read with the provisions of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the delay should be condoned. He further ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rmed as an appeal under Section 35E(4). In the instant case, since no application was filed before the CEGAT within stipulated period of three months, the provisions under Section 35B(5) for condoning the delay in filing the appeal cannot be applied in this case. He also cited the following case laws while opposing the application for condonation of delay :- (I)    CCE, Mumbai v.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of CEGAT. When the direction was issued by the Board to the Commissioner to file an application to CEGAT, he should have ensured that the application is sent to the correct address and should not have delegated the work to a junior officer like Superintendent. It is also seen that in two years no enquiry was made regarding the matter either with the CEGAT office or the post office. If no acknowled....